On 17 Mar 2008, Jeff Dike verbalised:

quoted text
> Below is the same patch with another kluge, which cuts down the
> requested sleep by 10% in hopes of getting the actual sleep closer to
> what's wanted.

Eeuuuuw. :)

quoted text
> This is unusable in anything resembling mainline, but I'd like to see
> how your various systems react to it.  I'm getting very close to the
> sleeps I asked for (with slight undersleeping, which is a bug).

OK.

Tests on host with clocksource pit:

bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 5
Slept for 5 seconds.
bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 10
Slept for 11 seconds.
bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 30
Slept for 31 seconds.
bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 60
Slept for 61 seconds.

... so much better than the 4x error without this patch.

Tests on host with clocksource tsc:

bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 5
Slept for 5 seconds.
bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 10
Slept for 10 seconds.
bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 30
Slept for 30 seconds.
bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 60
Slept for 61 seconds.

Distinctly better than without this patch.

(Am I the only person who finds it strange that (some) clocksource
hackers are arguing about accuracy problems in the ppm range while we're
glad to get an error of `only' single seconds per minute out of it? 
Maybe next year we can invent the `pendulum' clocksource :) )

-- 
`The rest is a tale of post and counter-post.' --- Ian Rawlings
                                                   describes USENET
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/